52 3. R. SUBERECTUS. 



there. I do not therefore quote E. nessensis as a synonym 

 of either of these plants. 



Fries makes the following important remark concerning 

 his plant. "Hie per region es montanas sylvaticas Gothise 

 totius viilgatissimus, nbi omnes sequentes fruticosi \R. fru- 

 ticosus = R. plicatus, R. affinis, R. thyrsoideus] desnnt, novum 

 offert exemplum ridiculse hodiernse hybriditatum venationis" 

 {Mant. iii. 40). The total absence of R. plicatus from a 

 province in which R. suberectus abounds, strongly tends 

 to prove that Dr Walker- Arnott {Brit Fl. ed. 8, 123) is 

 incorrect in combining them, without acknowledging their 

 distinction even as varieties. The fact that R. plicatus and 

 R. fissus are often called R. suberectus by Scottish collec- 

 tors, will possibly explain this proceeding of that eminent 

 botanist. 



Godron, Sonder, and Boreau, quote the R. fastigiatus 

 (W. and N.) as identical with this species. They are pro- 

 bably correct. It is represented by the R. umbrosus (Lees), 

 my specimen of which accords well with the figure in the 

 Rubi Germanici (t. 2); but Mr Lees does not state, and 

 would seem rather to deny, that the barren stems are very 

 long (15 to 20 feet) and arching, as they are said sometimes 

 to be by the authors of the German work. They (Wei he 

 and Nees) remark that this arch is not a constant character 



of their plant : "surculus qui primo vere germinans, 



primum recte ascendit, turn per tempus prolixior, pedetentim 

 in arcum curvatum ad terram inclinat; itaque in eodem 

 dumeto, e libero solo surgente, surculos invenies alios fere 

 erectos, alios ad dimidiam longitudinem dependentes, alios 

 denique qui terrse jam redditi, novas radices propellant." 



On the other hand Arrhenius {Fries Summa) quotes the 

 R. fastigiatus (W. and N.) as an undoubted form of his R. 

 fruticosus (which is our R. plicatus), and it seems probable 

 that he had in view a plant closely allied to R. fastigiatus 



